Sweeney v. Sweeney

• Decision Date: 31 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 103389.,103389.
• Citation: 63 N.E.3d 542
• Parties: Angela SWEENEY, Plaintiff v. Antonio SWEENEY, et al., Defendants–Appellees. [Appeal by Cuyahoga Job and Family Services].
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

63 N.E.3d 542

Angela SWEENEY, Plaintiff

v. Antonio SWEENEY, et al., Defendants–Appellees.[Appeal by Cuyahoga Job and Family Services].

No. 103389.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

March 31, 2016.

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor by Steven Ritz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Cleveland, OH, for appellant.

Antonio Sweeney, Shaker Heights, OH, pro se, for appellee.

Before: E.A. GALLAGHER, P.J., E.T. GALLAGHER, J., and CELEBREZZE, J.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER

, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Cuyahoga Job and Family Services—Office of Child Support Services formerly known as the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) (collectively, “CJFS—OCSS”) appeals from an order entered by the Domestic Relations Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas eliminating child support arrearages owed by appellee Antonio Sweeney (“Sweeney”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In June 1985, Angela Sweeney (“decedent”) and Sweeney were married in Detroit, Michigan. Together they had two children—Alexis Sweeney (“Alexis”), born in 1983, and Alana Sweeney (“Alana”), born in 1989. On June 26, 1991, decedent filed for divorce. The parties executed an agreed judgment entry of divorce, which was filed on December 13, 1991. Decedent became the custodial parent of the two children and Sweeney was to pay child support.

{¶ 3} Sweeney did not make his required child support payments and decedent filed a motion to show cause regarding Sweeney's failure to pay child support. On October 9, 1992, the court granted CJFS–OCSS's motion to intervene in the proceedings as a new party defendant to address child support issues.¹ The parties resolved their dispute and, on December 22, 1992, the trial court dismissed decedent's motion to show cause.

{¶ 4} In the years that followed, the parties continued to litigate various issues relating to the children including Sweeney's failure to pay child support. In support of a motion to show cause filed in August 1999, decedent submitted an affidavit in which she claimed that Sweeney's child support arrearages then exceeded $40,000.

{¶ 5} On July 3, 2000, an agreed judgment entry was entered that resolved a number of issues that had arisen between the parties, including Sweeney's unpaid child support. With respect to Sweeney's child support arrearages, the agreed judgment entry stated as follows:

5) Parties agree to a child support arrearage in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, in the amount of $25,000, as of 9/8/99, for which judgment is rendered and execution shall issue.

6) Effective 9/8/99, defendant shall pay $229.00 per month as and for child support, as per the attached computation, plus an additional $21 per month (includes poundage) to be credited against said arrearage.

{¶ 6} Once again, however, Sweeney failed to make required child support payments and, in April 2004, CJFS–OCSS filed a motion to show cause why Sweeney should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support. The motion was resolved in October 2004 through another agreed judgment entry, pursuant to which Sweeney agreed to pay $116.79 per month (including a 2% processing fee) as current support for Alana² plus an additional $138.21 per month towards the existing arrearage until the arrearage was paid in full or further order of the court—a total of $255.00 per month. The judgment entry indicated that Sweeney's total child support arrearage as of July 30, 2004 was $26,539.74 (including “all previously accrued support arrears and processing charges”) and was owed to “Obligee Angela Sweeney, * * * her assignee(s), and the Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency.” All payments were to be made through CJFS–OCSS.

{¶ 7} On July 31, 2008, after Alana had turned 18, the domestic relations court terminated child support payments on her behalf effective February 17, 2007 and ordered Sweeney to pay $250 per month in child support arrearages plus processing charges.³ It is unclear from the record whether Sweeney made any of these payments or what the outstanding arrearage was, at that time. Decedent died on August 25, 2010 in Detroit, Michigan. There is nothing in the record that suggests that decedent or her children ever received public assistance.

{¶ 8} On September 23, 2014, Sweeney filed a “motion for relief from debt” in which he asked the domestic relations court to eliminate the $28,488.01 in child support arrearages he then owed. Sweeney indicated that he wished to visit a sick family member in Montreal, Canada and that the child support arrearages precluded him from obtaining a passport. In support of his motion, he attached affidavits from the two adult children, Alexis and Alana, who were the subjects of the child support order, in which they stated as follows: “I hereby waive my right to all the child support arrearages owed by my Dad in [Case No.] 211566, Antonio Sweeney, in this or any other case. I make this waiver knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” At the time Sweeney filed his motion, his son Alexis was 31 and his daughter Alana was 25. Also attached to the motion was a certificate of service in which Sweeney certified that he had served copies of the motion on Alana and Alexis electronically and via regular U.S. mail and had “hand delivered” a copy of the motion on some unspecified date in September 2014 to “the Child Support Enforcement Agency on 17th and Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.”

{¶ 9} On January 5, 2015, the magistrate held a hearing on Sweeney's motion, which the magistrate recharacterized as a “motion to modify and/or suspend arrearages.” Sweeney was the only party present at the hearing; CJFS–OCSS did not appear. At the hearing, Sweeney indicated that he was seeking to have his existing child support arrearages reduced to zero so that he could get a passport to visit his sister, niece and nephew in Montreal, Canada. He testified that he had had discussions with his CJFS–OCSS case worker about the existing arrearages and that she suggested he file a motion with the court. Sweeney argued that the arrearages belonged to his adult children and stated that they had agreed to waive their rights to the arrearages. He testified that in speaking with his daughter, Alana, who had been “very close” to her mother, he determined that decedent had not left a will and that no estate was opened following her death. Sweeney claimed that he had been his ex-wife's first and only husband and that she had only two children—Alexis and Alana. He introduced into evidence a copy of the decedent's death certificate and the affidavits from Alexis and Alana waiving their rights to any child support arrearages he owed for their support.

{¶ 10} On May 4, 2015, the magistrate issued a decision granting Sweeney's motion and holding that Sweeney's “child support arrearage as owed to the deceased Obligee is reduced to zero.” The magistrate found that the “[s]ervice upon said motion was duly and properly made” and that “[n]otice containing the date and time of this proceeding was mailed to counsel of record and to the parties if unrepresented.”⁴ The magistrate further determined that “[t]he Support Obligor arrearages owed to the beneficiaries, the adult daughters [sic], is waivable” and that Sweeney's adult children had signed affidavits that “waived all child support arrears owed by their father in this case.” The magistrate reduced Sweeney's child support arrearage to zero “as owed to the deceased Obligee only” and ordered that CJFS–OCSS determine “if any monies are owed to assignees” such as ODJFS “due to past welfare monies” or to CJFS–OCSS for processing fees.

{¶ 11} CJFS–OCSS filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On July 20, 2015, the trial court overruled CJFS–OCSS's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision in its entirety without modification.

{¶ 12} CJFS–OCSS appealed the trial court's decision, raising the following five assignments of error for review:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

The Domestic Relations Court erred, as a matter of law, by granting Defendant–Appellee Sweeney's Motion for Relief from Debt from Arrearages, because Defendant–Appellee failed to attempt and perfect service of same and thus, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

The Domestic Relations Court erred, as a matter of law, by failing to find that child support arrears were an asset of the Estate of the Obligee, the late Angela Sweeney.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

The Domestic Relations Court erred, as a matter of law, because it failed to include the Estate as a mandatory party to this action.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

The Domestic Relations Court erred, as a matter of law, by improperly, and without authority, modifying delinquent child support arrears retroactively in contravention of R.C. 3119.83

, without the consent of the Obligee.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V

The Domestic Relations Court erred, as a matter of law, by diminishing the assets of an Estate. Such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Division of the Court of Common Pleas.

Law and Analysis

Standing

{¶ 13} As an initial matter, Sweeney argues that this appeal should be dismissed because CJFS–OCSS lacks standing to appeal the trial court's decision in this case. Standing is a preliminary issue that courts must decide prior to addressing the merits of a legal claim. State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-4612, 955 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 27

, citing Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio-6036, 944 N.E.2d 207, ¶ 9. Accordingly, before we may consider the merits of CJFS–OCSS's assignments of error, we must first determine whether CJFS–OCSS has standing to bring this appeal.

{¶ 14} To have appellate standing, a party must be “aggrieved by the final order appealed from.” State ex rel. Merrill at ¶ 28; see also Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, ...